Todisco v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 159
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Todisco was charged March 16, 2009 with class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
- The case underwent reassignment, consolidation, continuances, and refiling, causing substantial delays.
- A jury trial was ultimately scheduled for September 14, 2010 after earlier July 12, 2010 setting was reset.
- Todisco admitted 117 days of delay were attributable to him due to his continuances from May–September 2009.
- The State’s May 14, 2010 date reset to July 12, 2010 fell within the one-year limit, but Todisco did not timely object.
- On August 11, 2010 Todisco moved for discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C); the trial court denied, and the subsequent proceedings led to a conviction on disorderly conduct (June 27, 2011) with the intimidation count dismissed on mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discharge was proper under Rule 4(C) | Todisco | Todisco | Discharge denied; waiver found for not objecting timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. State, 910 N.E.2d 263 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (state-owed speedy-trial duty; defendant need not remind court)
- State v. Black, 947 N.E.2d 503 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (defendant waives speed-trial rights by acquiescence to delays)
- Hood v. State, 561 N.E.2d 494 (Ind.1990) (objection must be prompt and specific to preserve issue)
- Yurina v. State, 474 N.E.2d 93 (Ind.1985) (grounds for objection must be stated with reasonable specificity)
- Blair v. State, 877 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (speedy-trial rights; right to a speedy trial analysis)
- Feuston v. State, 953 N.E.2d 545 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (standard of review for Crim Rule 4(C) appeals; de novo review of legal conclusions)